The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-10-13

Than their lace imports. In this construc-
non we'may adopt the language OF the su-,
prcme court OF Indians: This power OF con-
suuctioh IL a mighty one and, unrestrained
Dy. settled rules, would tend TO throw pain
fui uncertainty over the effect that might be
gwen 70 the most plainly worded statute
mere constitution) and render the courts
really the Legislative there constitution
making) power Of the State"
Judge rnrney thus quotes approvingly tn
People VS.. Purdy, 2 Hill, concluding the
quotation with the following sentence:
written constitutions Of government will
soon come TO be regarded as of little value, IL
their injunctions may be thus lightly over
looked, and the experiment OF settling O
boundary to power will prove q failure"
The judge then proceeds: 'If this warn
ing-in language we are tempted TO call
prophetic-had been needed, we might to-
day, as did Judge Caruthers in 1854, have
boosted: There Is no higher law than the
constitution. This is the supreme and para
mount law, before which all must bow with
reverence. =" | make only one other quota
ton. IL is from Cooley's constitutional
Limitations" the latest and most popular
work on the subject, Pages SO, 81, SO, fifth
edition, under the head, unjust Proyis-
ions:'
ave have elsewhere expressed the opinion
that a statute cannot he declared void on the
ground solely that IL is rcpugnant 10 a sup
posed general intent or spirit which, ii Is
thought, pervadcs or lies concealed in the
constitution, but wholly uneypressed, or be-
cause, in the opinion Of the court, il violates
fundamental rights or principles, il il was
passed in the exercise Of a power which the
constitution c%onfers. Still less will the in
justice Of n constitutional provision author
100 sl.A aa..N A. Il -
annul II by constituting IL away. " q o
The remedy for such injustice must he found
in the action of the people themselves
through an amendment OF their work when
better oounsels prevail. Such provisions,
when free from doubt, must receive the
same construction NJ any other. We do not
say, however, that II a clause should be
found in the constitution which shall appear
ut first blush TO demand u construction lead
ing TO monstrous and absurd consequences
II might not be the duty Of the court TO
question aud cross-question such clause
closely, with n view to discover in IL,
II possible, some other meaning more
consistent with the general purposes
and aims Of these instruments. Wien such
u case arises, IL will be time TO consider Il"
(Sce also Page 202 ct scq.)
Is the clause under consideration one "tO
question and ~croSs-qucstion closcly?' II
may bo such a clause.
IL has also been argued that by the words
voting for representatives the constitu-
ton means those entitled 10 vote for repre-
scntatiycs. But this position was taken, and
oycrrulcd in the Legislature Of 1854. (See
the journals of both houscs.) Many Of the
States constitutions have the words those
entitled TO vote for representatives" And
in somc a majority only OF the votes actually
cast Is required. But our constitution
makers OF 1870, with all these before them,
have adhered TO the language Of 1884, and
require n majority Of those voting for repre-.
scntatiyea. Without such a minority an
amendment fails, even though there he not
a vote against II, as IN the case OF the new
county amendment In 1858.
Whether with the majority required by
the constitution. hut with n majority of the
votes cast, n proposed amendment j. ratified
Is the question. And II Is one which should
be solved. ! have cndcGyorcd to present
both sides Of the question for the considcra.
ton OF those interested. WV. NJ. SMITH.